Pcn & ntk

Gfrancis1989

Got another ntk today.

Date of PCN was 04-01-16 and ntk is dated 23-03-16.

Isn't there a time limit on how long they have to issue the ntk

Fruitcake

Gfrancis1989 wrote: »

Got another ntk today.

Date of PCN was 04-01-16 and ntk is dated 23-03-16.

Isn't there a time limit on how long they have to issue the ntk

Yes there is. It's explained n the NEWBIES thread.


14 days if ANPR is used, or between 28 and 56 days if ANPR not used/windscreen ticket received. Counting from the day after the alleged event.


So, NTK not POFA 2012 compliant then. A PoPLA winning appeal point. This assumes the NTK is for the same windscreen PCN.

Gfrancis1989

Thanks fruitcake, I searched but I must have missed it.

Easy win for that one then

Coupon-mad

If POPLA are not being stupid again.

Gfrancis1989

Been reading the BPA Code of Practice specifically about the text sizing...

The road has an adequate entry sign but it is on the right side of the road and not the left, to which we here in the UK drive on.

Therefore, as a driver is driving in and focusing on the road ahead, the sign is not immediately visible.

For the rest of the road, all the signs are above 6ft and also are impossible to see from the roadside in real time.

Does this sound like a good basis so far?

I'm also going to mention the authority although the road is very new and I got a feeling they may be above board.

Coupon-mad

Sounds fine so far as long as you don't say the entrance sign is 'adequate'. Never say that!

Gfrancis1989

No I won't, just emphasising it here.

So I'll remove the contract parts, associated signage positioning and authority.

Then for 3rd I'll add the wrong location on the appeal rejection?

Gfrancis1989

How does this look for appeal #1?

POPLA REF XXXXXXXX

CAR REG XXXXXXX

As the registered keeper of the car mentioned above I would like to appeal and have cancelled the parking charge notice issued by Capital Carpark Control for a number of reasons outlined below:

1. Capital Carpark Control has no contractual authority
2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act
3. Without a contract
4. Non BPA compliant signage


1. Capital Carpark Conrol has no contractual authority

In the notices they have sent me Capital Carpark Conrol have not shown any evidence that they have any proprietary interest in the car park/land in question. Also they have not provided me with any evidence that they are lawfully entitled to demand money from either driver or keeper. It would seem that they do not own or have any interest or assignment of title in the land. I can only assume instead they are agents for the owner/legal occupier instead. I submit therefore that they do not have the necessary legal right to make the charge for a vehicle using the car park. I require Capital Carpark Conrol to provide a full, up-to date and signed/dated contract with the landowner (a statement saying someone has seen the contract is not enough). The contract needs to state that Capital Carpark Conrol are entitled to pursue matters such as these through the issue of Parking Charge Notices and in the courts in their own name. I clarify that this should be an actual copy and not just a document that claims a contract/agreement exists.

2. Keeper Liability Requirements and the Protection of Freedom Act

As keeper of the vehicle, I decline, as is my right to provide the name of the driver of the vehicle at the time in question. As the parking company have neither named the driver nor provided any evidence as to who the driver was I submit that I am not liable to any charge. In regards to the notices I have received Capital Carpark Conrol has made it clear that it is operating under Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act but has not fully met all the keeper liability requirements and therefore keeper liability does not apply. The parking company can therefore in relation to this point only pursue the driver.

I would like to point out that Schedule 4 paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Protection of Freedoms Act stipulates that some mandatory information must be included in the Notice to Keeper. If all of this information is not present then the Notice to Keeper is invalid and the condition set out in paragraph 6 of Schedule 4 has not been complied with. The Act clearly states that the parking charge notice to keeper should invite the registered keeper to pay the outstanding parking charge (or if he/she was not the driver, to provide the name and address of the driver and pass a copy of the notice on to that driver). In their parking charge notice letter at no point did they actually invite me as the registered keeper to pay the parking charge. Instead they imply that my only choice is to give up the name of the driver of the vehicle (when in actual fact I am under no legal obligation to do so). The wording of the PCN actually makes it sound like I have little choice but to give up the driver and does not actually state the choice to pay it myself.


3. Without a contract

Without a contract it would seem the most appropriate offence would be a civil trespass. If this were the case, the appropriate award Capital Carpark Conrol could seek would be damages. As there was no damage to car park there was no loss to them at all and therefore should be no charge.

4. Non BPA compliant signage

The signage at the car park was not compliant with the BPA standards and therefore there was no valid contract between the parking company and the driver.

Following receipt of the charge, I have personally visited the site in question. I believe the signs and any core parking terms that the parking company are relying upon were too high and too small for any driver to see, read or understand when driving into this car park. Furthermore, the signs are not all lit which renders reading them at night impossible. As at the time the Parking Charge was incurred (05/01/16 at 21:47) it was dark and therefore not possible to see all signs which is not compliant with the BPA standards, although in the images they have taken it appears light as they had a camera flash.

The Operator needs to show evidence and signage map/photos on this point - specifically showing the height and lighting of the signs and where they are at the entrance, whether a driver still in a car can see and read them when deciding to drive in. I would specifically like them to look into how clear the signs are including the height of the signs and font size. The entry sign is to the right side of the road meaning any driver driving into this road would need to divert their full attention to the right side of the road rather than concentrating on the left, where we in the UK drive. Any terms displayed on the ticket machines or on a ticket itself, do not alter the contract which must be shown in full at the entrance. I believe the signs failed to properly and clearly warn/inform the driver of the terms in this car park as they failed to comply with the BPA Code of Practice appendix B. I require the operator to provide photographic evidence that proves otherwise.

As a POPLA assessor has said previously in an adjudication
“Once an Appellant submits that the terms of parking were not displayed clearly enough, the onus is then on the Operator to demonstrate that the signs at the time and location in question were sufficiently clear”.

The parking company needs to prove that the driver actually saw, read and accepted the terms, which means that I and the POPLA adjudicator would be led to believe that a conscious decision was made by the driver to park in exchange for paying the extortionate fixed amount the Operator is now demanding, rather than simply the nominal amount presumably due in a machine on site.

The idea that any driver would accept these terms knowingly is perverse and beyond credibility.
For the above, please see these examples of the inadequate signage:
(Using Capital Carpark Controls image sent to me, the keeper, in my appeal rejection)

hxxp://s28.postimg.org/sc2ejlegt/image.jpg


This shows how high the sign is and also how small the text is, unable for anybody to read clearly.
I respectfully request that this parking charge notice appeal be allowed and await your decision.

Gfrancis1989

Also, this for the 4th NTK.

Date 29/03/16


Dear Sirs

Re: PCN No. CXXXXXXX


I challenge this 'PCN' as keeper of the car and I will complain to the landowner about the matter if it is not cancelled.

I believe that the signs were not seen/are ambiguous and the terms unclear to drivers before they park. Further, I understand you do not own the car park and you have given me no information about your policy with the landowner or on site businesses, to cancel such a charge. So please supply that policy as I believe the driver may well be eligible for cancellation.

There will be no admissions as to who was driving and no assumptions can be drawn. You must either rely on the POFA 2012 and offer me a POPLA code, or cancel the charge.

In addition to this, information on the Notice To Keeper states:

"PCN date: 04/01/16 - NTK dated: 23/03/16"
By this, that is 79 days between the PCN being issued and the NTK being received.
This is not honouring POFA 2012 (56 days maximum) and therefore does not comply with the act

I have kept proof of submission of this appeal and look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,
XXX XXXXX

Hopefully I will receive an appeal success?

Once again, thanks to everybody who is helping me with this.

Fruitcake

Post 49, section 3. I wouldn't suggest to the parking scumpany that you think you might have committed an offence of any kind.


I would just concentrate on there being no contract.


Post 50. I think, honouring POFA 2012 could be reworded better. Does not meet the requirements of the Act or similar perhaps.